"I'm sure you understand why."
Hayseed
"In This White House" (#26, 10/25/2000).
Kenneth G. Cavness <kcav...@proxicomNO.SPAMcom> wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Wow. . . .
> >
> > Anyway, I did have one question from it. When
> > Sheen mentions to the African leader that he can't
> > provide military aid to him, he says "I'm sure you
> > understand why", and the leader agrees.
> >
> > Well, I'm glad the leader understood, but I sure
> > as [*@&!] didn't. Anyone care to tell me why?
> > --------------------------------------------------
This statement occurs in the last scene where
President Nimbala (Republic of Equatorial Kuhndu)
appears.
After some discussion, we still don't have an
answer that makes us go, "Oh. Yes, of course."
Scott Spiegelberg <spi...@theory.esmNO.SPAMrochester.edu>
suggested:
> Mary had the same question, to which I could only
> think of overextension or lack of national security
> interests as reasons. Or perhaps because the coup
> was solely an interior matter, so the US had no
> legal authority. But all of these are pretty weak.
And, Anne Willick <bwil...@NOmediaSPAMone.net> added:
> At the time, my kneejerk thought was: The U.S.
> couldn't just go jumping into every Joe
> country's political affairs, even if they do
> get along with the deposed president better.
> Again, on reflection, this does seem a bit
> weak also.
Since the writer thought it so obvious that we
would all get it, I wonder if it has something to
do with the major theme of Nimbala's visit, namely,
AIDS. Is Bartlett suggesting that the U.S. wouldn't
send troops for fear of exposing them to AIDS?
To me, that explanation sounds as corny as every-
thing else that's been offered. Does anyone really
understand this? Please help us out.
-- Ted Parsons
PS Please forgive if this question has been
asked and answered in other threads. I
searched, but could find no mention of it.
----------Hayseed---------------------------
Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self;
for what we wish, we readily believe. --Demosthenes
--
-- Ted Parsons
----------Hayseed---------------------------
Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self;
for what we wish, we readily believe. --Demosthenes
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David J. Snyder
Hayseed <TCPa...@ProsaicMuse.com> wrote:
>Since the writer thought it so obvious that we
>would all get it,
I think it's more likely that Sorkin thought it wasn't important
enough to need explaining, and that we as viewers should just
accept that the US couldn't interfere and go on from there.
-Dave
Brian Cole
change the situation because
1) they haven't been invited. 2) where would they physically start? 3)
what would have been their object?
This obviously leads into a discussion of previous interventions we have
done, we shouldn't have done or we should have done earlier. I think it
goes outside the realm of this newgroup. If you want to take it up. Lets
have at it.
--
Brian L. Cole
Researching Coles from MD to Jeff. Co., Ohio
"Hayseed" <TCPa...@ProsaicMuse.com> wrote in message
news:8tknmn$70g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Charles A Lieberman
David J. Snyder
>>Since the writer thought it so obvious that we
>>would all get it,
>
>I think it's more likely that Sorkin thought it wasn't important
>enough to need explaining, and that we as viewers should just
>accept that the US couldn't interfere and go on from there.
That sounds unSorkinly
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Taylor, you can't love a man with no head!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html No relation.
David J. Snyder
Charles A Lieberman <yvro...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:17:50 GMT
>David J. Snyder
>>>Since the writer thought it so obvious that we
>>>would all get it,
>>
>>I think it's more likely that Sorkin thought it wasn't important
>>enough to need explaining, and that we as viewers should just
>>accept that the US couldn't interfere and go on from there.
>
>That sounds unSorkinly
>
get an explanation of how they tracked down the signal guy,
or just how anyone stole somthing off Mandy's hard drive. Providing
nitty gritty details isn't necessarily important to him.
-Dave
TM Wheaton
We spend the entire episode listening to the very earnest, the
very idealistic and the very righteous Toby and Josh condemn the
pharmaceutical companies for not sending drugs to Africa to help
with the AIDS crisis. Toby at one point remarks "If it were 20
million Europeans dying we'd've had aid yesterday" or something
like that.
Yet at the very end when death is much more immediate and when
the White House itself has the power to send some aid, they can't
and the only explanation is "I'm sure you understand why." And
then we are supposed to remember Toby's remark and think that if
this sort of coup had happened in a European country (or oil
producing country) we would've sent in aid.
Tina
Hayseed wrote:
> > > Anyway, I did have one question from it. When
> > > Sheen mentions to the African leader that he can't
> > > provide military aid to him, he says "I'm sure you
> > > understand why", and the leader agrees.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm glad the leader understood, but I sure
> > > as [*@&!] didn't. Anyone care to tell me why?
> Since the writer thought it so obvious that we
Priscilla H Ballou
: In another forum, we've raised a question about
: "In This White House" (#26, 10/25/2000).
: Kenneth G. Cavness <kcav...@proxicomNO.SPAMcom> wrote:
: > > --------------------------------------------------
: > > Wow. . . .
: > >
: > > Anyway, I did have one question from it. When
: > > Sheen mentions to the African leader that he can't
: > > provide military aid to him, he says "I'm sure you
: > > understand why", and the leader agrees.
: > >
: > > Well, I'm glad the leader understood, but I sure
: > > as [*@&!] didn't. Anyone care to tell me why?
: > > --------------------------------------------------
Because they're violating copyright law by buying the cheap versions of
the AIDS meds and thus getting around copyright. That was the whole issue
the meeting was about. And this is one of the consequences of their
making the decision to go with the cheap meds.
At least that's how I read it.
Priscilla
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick
Jodis home mail
Because they're violating copyright law by buying the cheap versions of
the AIDS meds and thus getting around copyright. That was the whole issue
the meeting was about. And this is one of the consequences of their
making the decision to go with the cheap meds.
At least that's how I read it.>>
That's not how I read it at all. Of course, I've almost have given up trying
to understand it until I came across this thread. (Thanks all) Anyways.... I
figured it had to do with having not established a military prescence and not
being able to take sides politically at this poit in time. Didn't see it
directly related to their conference. But then again, I really have no clue
about this statement.
Jeremy Billones
Priscilla H Ballou <p...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Because they're violating copyright law by buying the cheap versions of
>the AIDS meds and thus getting around copyright. That was the whole issue
>the meeting was about. And this is one of the consequences of their
>making the decision to go with the cheap meds.
I think the use of the term "copyright" instead of "patent" is the
least of this paragraph's problems :)
--
Jeremy Billones
"Captain, you are the most double-talking, suspicious, second-guessing
individual I have ever seen... since the last time I looked in a a mirror."
